The standard model of physics is not implying it has the answer to everything, or that there is nothing new to discover. The standard model of physics is the periodic table for fundamental particles. The bits that make up all the other parts.
The periodic table is predictive. From a few elements, the rest could be projected and expected, like the Higgs-Boson. The table makes no predictions for things we cannot measure and are in fact theoretical, like dark matter which lacks any empirical evidence. Would be awesome if it did because then it wouldn’t be theoretical anymore.
Do not mix theory with hypothesis. A theory in science is a very big deal and needs a lot to be true in order to even reach theory status (which is why “string theory” isn’t a theory. More like “string idea”).
The standard model of physics is not implying it has the answer to everything, or that there is nothing new to discover. The standard model of physics is the periodic table for fundamental particles. The bits that make up all the other parts.
How are you certain there are no undiscovered fundamental particles involved to quantum gravity and dark matter?
The periodic table is predictive. From a few elements, the rest could be projected and expected, like the Higgs-Boson. The table makes no predictions for things we cannot measure and are in fact theoretical, like dark matter which lacks any empirical evidence. Would be awesome if it did because then it wouldn’t be theoretical anymore.
Periodic table is for atoms. I think you are mixing it up with the standard model, which is for subatomic particles.
They’re both the same thing for a different area.
Whats the difference between expecting and predicting here?
BH was theoretical at first. The new breakthrough was empirical evidence.
Do not mix theory with hypothesis. A theory in science is a very big deal and needs a lot to be true in order to even reach theory status (which is why “string theory” isn’t a theory. More like “string idea”).